The Anti-Capitalists: Barbarians at the Gate.

[Dejavu]

This is must read/listen for supporters and opponents of socialism.

It is a recorded seminar with Professor Sechrest building off the criticisms of Mises, one of socialism's greatest opponents.

Here is the youtube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zw7sPq0ekIM) link. I'll write my own take on it in a little bit.


Here is the link (http://www.mises.org/story/2921) to the text.

[Dejavu]

Intentionally blank

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't like this claim that somehow socialism is based on "envy".

I have no desire to become rich, and I consider myself to be a success in what I do.

This seems like the hypothetical mumbo jumbo that capitalists (sometimes rightly) accuse socialists of engaging in.

I like how high the stakes are, too: now, we're not only defending capitalism from a standpoint of effeciency and quality of life, but from a standpoint that, if capitalism goes the way of the dodo, the shitstorm that will result will be so big that all of civilization will be destroyed. :D

[pusher robot]

This is the MP3 audio for those who don't feel like reading the whole thing. (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ASC2008/ASC08-Sechrest.mp3)

This is probably the best short criticism I heard of Socialism yet. Tom, I think you'd really enjoy this one. Same goes for pusher.

Regardless, I don't like being shilled at. Why not edit your first post down to a concise summary using your own words?

[Dejavu]

I don't like this claim that somehow socialism is based on "envy".

I have no desire to become rich, and I consider myself to be a success in what I do.

This seems like the hypothetical mumbo jumbo that capitalists (sometimes rightly) accuse socialists of engaging in.

I like how high the stakes are, too: now, we're not only defending capitalism from a standpoint of effeciency and quality of life, but from a standpoint that, if capitalism goes the way of the dodo, the shitstorm that will result will be so big that all of civilization will be destroyed. :D

Well, there is the youtube link and the mp3 link. I suggest you listen to it if you don't feel like reading it. Sechrest explains well why socialism is linked to envy and ignorance. And the last part is true, the destruction of capitalism will usher in the destruction of modern civilization but maybe some socialists prefer it that way?

Reality sinks in and people don't like it.

[Dejavu]

Regardless, I don't like being shilled at. Why not edit your first post down to a concise summary using your own words?

Sure, I don't mind doing that. I'll modify it later as I don't feel like writing it all out right now and I feel the content is so dead on that I don't want to chance misrepresenting the points.

[Bud Struggle]

This is the MP3 audio for those who don't feel like reading the whole thing. (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ASC2008/ASC08-Sechrest.mp3)

This is probably the best short criticism I heard of Socialism yet. Tom, I think you'd really enjoy this one. Same goes for pusher.

From what I've begun to read--pretty damn(ing) interesting! :D

Thanks.

[Dejavu]

From what I've begun to read--pretty damn(ing) interesting! :D

Thanks.

Theres a link for an audio TomK which basically recites what written. The speaker Dr. Sechrest is pretty charismatic and nails the points good.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, there is the youtube link and the mp3 link. I suggest you listen to it if you don't feel like reading it. Sechrest explains well why socialism is linked to envy and ignorance.

I did read the relevant part about envy. He didn't prove in any way, shape, or form that socialism is based on "envy". There is no solid evidence to support this conclusion; it's just one man's psychobabble. In a way, in fact, engaging in the same kind of "pop psychology" that some opponents of Marxism accuse Marx of engaging in. His whole point can essentially be boiled down into one sentence: "Eh, they're just jealous!"


And the last part is true, the destruction of capitalism will usher in the destruction of modern civilization but maybe some socialists prefer it that way?

And only Ludwig Von Mises thought can save us. :rolleyes:

[JazzRemington]

In a way, in fact, engaging in the same kind of "pop psychology" that some opponents of Marxism accuse Marx of engaging in. His whole point can essentially be boiled down into one sentence: "Eh, they're just jealous!"



And only Ludwig Von Mises thought can save us. :rolleyes:

On top of which most every other form of organization had the same basic logic throughout history. Even Feudalism. But of course because our friend who posted this nonsense is white, rich male from a highly industrialized country knows what's best for everyone and anyone who disagrees with him just doesn't understand the world. Clearly.

Further: the same logic can be used to describe why capitalism surpassed feudalism - namely, that the free-marketeers were jealous of the feudal lord's power and wealth and wanted it. Capitalism, as with anti-capitalism, is based on envy as well. If you disagree with me, then you are just ignorant of capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

I did read the relevant part about envy.

I remember one of the first posts I read here at OI, someone was complaining that Sam Walton's kids don't have to work for a living so Capitalism stinks. I was really struck that anyone would ever care what anyone did with their money. But envy it was and envy it is.

It seems that the only way you can avoid the cycle is to become a business person yourself--then you are in control of your own fate and have no need for envy.

[Dejavu]

On top of which most every other form of organization had the same basic logic throughout history. Even Feudalism. But of course because our friend who posted this nonsense is white, rich male from a highly industrialized country knows what's best for everyone and anyone who disagrees with him just doesn't understand the world. Clearly.

Further: the same logic can be used to describe why capitalism surpassed feudalism - namely, that the free-marketeers were jealous of the feudal lord's power and wealth and wanted it. Capitalism, as with anti-capitalism, is based on envy as well. If you disagree with me, then you are just ignorant of capitalism.

You actually prove the whole point of the criticism. Good job. :laugh:

[JazzRemington]

You actually prove the whole point of the criticism. Good job. :laugh:

What, that they think they know what's best for the world? That's elitist and paternal; however, clearly you're not being elitist or paternal, I'm just jealous. Even though it's pretty much the same argument you're making.

But I suppose you are going to continue to think (i.e. not supported by empirical evidence but by your own biased observation and preconceptions) that I'm just jealous of all your money and power regardless of what sort of criticism I make, even if it is using the same logic and reasoning as your own.

This is why I dislike debate people. The lunatic on the corner is ignored by everyone not because he's right, but because he is incapable of rational argument.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't understand why loathsome qualities need to be projected upon one's ideological opponents. What's wrong with simply having different ideas about the way things should be run?

[careyprice31]

I don't understand why loathsome qualities need to be projected upon one's ideological opponents. What's wrong with simply having different ideas about the way things should be run?

Nothing. There's nothing wrong with having different ideas. In fact having people to criticize your ideas an look for any flaws may actually be helpful in a society. If you have a central idea thats unopposed, uncriticized, there can be big trouble. Constructive criticisms can be a great help.

btw, dejavu and I had the discussion today about socialism being based on envy. We chat on msn all the time. I dont think it is based on envy. Socialism didn't arise out of a sense of jealousy. Yes, as one person said, one could make the same case of people, for example peasants and serfs, and slaves for that matter, who wanted to break out of feudalism.

[careyprice31]

On top of which most every other form of organization had the same basic logic throughout history. Even Feudalism. But of course because our friend who posted this nonsense is white, rich male from a highly industrialized country knows what's best for everyone and anyone who disagrees with him just doesn't understand the world. Clearly.

Further: the same logic can be used to describe why capitalism surpassed feudalism - namely, that the free-marketeers were jealous of the feudal lord's power and wealth and wanted it. Capitalism, as with anti-capitalism, is based on envy as well. If you disagree with me, then you are just ignorant of capitalism.


I'll admit that i know nothing of economics and have never studied it. But I do know about social classes. and the reason I turned to leftism isnt because I was jealous of what the upper social classes had that I didnt have. In fact if you have really studied them you would see they have not very much at all to be jealous of.

For example, 'popular' people get a lot of friends because of what they own or what they have. They are liked because of very superficial qualities. Maybe the best looking, or the best athletes on the team, or something. This is not something to be jealous of.

Often social pariahs have many deep qualities that are not closely tied with what other people think. They often have deeper qualities. They often march to the beat of a different drummer, as one poet put it.

But pariahs often are denied their human rights. They are attacked, ridiculed, and sometimes they are murdered or they commit suicide.

What drove me to leftism is the fact that what happens is a violation of their person and their being denied their human democratic rights they should have. I was denied my rights as a human and I would like to help others to make sure no oneelse has to go through what I went through.

I think this is typical of most leftists. They have experienced denial of their rights, either their own or someone else's rights. They want to help. This is not envy, it is altruism.

[Publius]

This is must read/listen for supporters and opponents of socialism.

It is a recorded seminar with Professor Sechrest building off the criticisms of Mises, one of socialism's greatest opponents.

Really? I've found Mises to be a minor figure in economics, usually mentioned only as a footnote when referencing Hayek.

Mises and the circle jerk Austrians no doubt think he was one of socialism's greatest opponents, but he's pretty much ignored as a scholar by leftists and neo-classical economists alike.

My friend who took an Honors Macroeconomics class last quarter never heard of him, and it's no wonder: Austrian theory is ignored by 95% + of the profession. Probably 95% of capitalist economists, for that matter. Maybe more.

Not to mention the fact that Mises is even MORE insignificant as a philosopher, which he seemed to want to be with his "praxeology" bullshit. Mises is, quite literally, never referenced in philosophy or psychology circles, and for good reason. And since the economics are based on these nonsense notions ('rational action', 'praxeology', this individualist ethic, etc.) the economics fall with the philosophy.

The same goes for Ayn Rand too.

This idea that Mises (and Rothbard and Rand too, for that matter) was some kind of overpowering genius is just bullshit. Economics has had some brilliant minds in the 20th century -- Mises wasn't one of them.

Bertrand Russell (ever heard of him?) said that John Maynard Keynes was the smartest person he ever met. Bertrand Russell taught alongside Wittgenstein.

Anyway, on to the video...



Here is the youtube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zw7sPq0ekIM) link. I'll write my own take on it in a little bit.


Here is the link (http://www.mises.org/story/2921) to the text.



To humor you, I've decided to watch as much of this as I could stand.

Hold up, "the epistemological basis of economics"? What'd I tell you? Bullshit philosophy begets bullshit economics.

He contradicts himself: truth is not "malleable" if truth is, in the Humean sense, statistical.

More bullshit about how humanity should be based on money, not on things like art, literature, etc. Nonsense.

When he lays out the list of all the things he would abolish, it just becomes more apparent how idiotic his ideas are.

Envy: I'm not envious of capitalists. I don't want their money. Furthermore, I've been done well by the capitalist system. Were I to become a nice little capitalist and play by the rules (read: break them whenever useful), I could no doubt amass some coin for myself. But I have no desire to do that.

More amateur bullshit psychology, almost Nietzschean, though much more insipid and less well-written.

This "black magic" strawman is especially insipid. None thinks anything like that. People complain, in the capitalist system, that they are born with disadvantages. And they're right. Look up the "black tax". Look at the average family income of Harvard students. The playing field is not level.

Shouldn't it be?

More bullshit about reason.

On Marx and relative wealth. See, here's a perfect example of these dipshits being totally ignorant of the relevant empirical information. Crime is tried to relative, not absolute, poverty. The criminals of today are, by and large, poor. But they're poor only in the sense that they are poor relative to others in their society. To others in, say, Latvia or Zimbabwe they might be quite well off. But guess what? They make more, but it also costs more to live. The social pressures in countries that are absolutely poorer do not exist. I assure you, the criminal down on the block who's "getting his" is no socialist -- he's (it's predominantly a male activity, crime) as pure a capitalist as you'll find.

So really, Marx was right. If your wages go up 5% a year and everyone elses go up 40%, you will become poorer in every meaningful sense. Prices of goods will go up (inflation), everyone else will amass wealth that you can't aspire to, your social standing will suffer, etc.

Alright, I made it through 17 minutes before I gave up. I tried.

[JazzRemington]

I don't understand why loathsome qualities need to be projected upon one's ideological opponents. What's wrong with simply having different ideas about the way things should be run?

I've never said he was wrong. What I said was it's not possible to know whether or not people dislike capitalism because of jealousy. What I dislike is when people take their personal beliefs and try to use them to make objective statements about the world. There's a difference between saying "I think people are violent and stupid" and "People are violent and stupid." The former is a personal statement while the latter is an objective statement about the world.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I was really struck that anyone would ever care what anyone did with their money.

Interesting remark. Do you not care if someone spends their money on a child prostitute?

I'm amused by the fact certain capitalist apologists get upset by food stamps, social security, labor regulation, workman's compensation, WIC, and other safety net provisions which more often than not provide assistance to good, hard-working people, but then excuse the lifestyle of Paris Hilton types because it's their family's money. Perhaps a reasonable argument could be made in favor of capitalism if all children up until the age of 25 enjoyed the same level of economic stability, and merit was actually the primary consideration for wealth.


I've never said he was wrong. What I said was it's not possible to know whether or not people dislike capitalism because of jealousy. What I dislike is when people take their personal beliefs and try to use them to make objective statements about the world. There's a difference between saying "I think people are violent and stupid" and "People are violent and stupid." The former is a personal statement while the latter is an objective statement about the world.

It also wouldn't be a stretch of anyone's imagination to claim capitalists oppose socialism based on greed.

I, for one, enjoy quite a comfortable lifestyle in the top 10%. I have job security, a wonderful family, and will likely be able to buy off my house before most people are even thinking about paying their first mortgage. I've been presented with opportunities to acquire more wealth, but the positions called for exploitive capital and I will not tolerate such nonsense. I could likely live well above my means with two houses and a golden laptop, but I have no such aspirations. All I want in life is enough leisure that I'm not a slave to my work, a good job that I love, a healthy community, equal opportunity, and social justice. I don't need the newest gadget out in circulation but I would love to have all the video game consoles, a large HD television screen, some grungy tees, and perhaps a pool table. My habitual indoor activities may also call for some weights.

Does that constitute envy yet?

Ludwig Von Mises is taken less seriously by contemporary economists than even Karl Marx - not to mention his philosophical musings are rarely, if ever, taken to mean something. Who do you look up to? The nutter Alex Jones? The racist Ron Paul? The imperialist Milton Friedman? The crackpot Rothbard - the same guy who made a lengthy article detailing how Adam Smith should not be championed as a forbearer to classical liberalism due to his communist influence?

[RaiseYourVoice]

Ok i watched the first part of it, and this guy is just a totall delussionary idiot. So he wants, no health care, no wellfare system, no progressive taxes, no state intervention at all. With that line even CAPITALISTS today would condemn him as an idiot. Just think one second about where the bank crisis atm would get us if those banks wouldnt be supported by states. Apart from of course the fact that history has many times shown us where a state free economy goes. Monopolies, huge gap between rich and poor followed by breakdown.

Then he goes on to ask how people can attack capitalism, while capitalism raised made so many people so rich. Well maybe its because even though our productivity grew huge amounts, people in the western world still starve, live on the streets etc. I dont think thats what he means by living "like Kings".

Second... in what world does he live. Merit and achievement determine a mans succes of failure? In my world its connections, cash from the parents, ethnic backround that largely determine succes or failure. This is not as his view just made up out of the back of my mind, it is actually what studies have proven over and over. This guy is not doing a scientific analysis of capitalism, rather he is doing an ideological defence. His arguments arent those of statistics, those of logical relation but those of his personal opinion. To prove "envhy" he quotes not science, but a TALE, for his other claims he doesnt even state ANY basis whatsoever.

His comparism between a politician of a devoloping country being robbed by industrial countries and workers being robbed by their boss to belive in black magic is just as funny as the rest. That my boss does not earn money by productive labour, but by selling the product of MY productive labour, while making extra profit for nothing but MANAGING ist not my imagination, nor black magic but a simple fact. That the flow of money is despite all lies going from devoloped countries to industrialized countries is neither. (see Jean Ziegler "Empire of shame")

Even though he quotes Marx, he either didnt read or didnt understand him. Not suprising though, as he doesnt not even have a grasp of economy.

Since the whole basis of his argumentation is flawed at best, of course his conclusion is too. Envhy is indeed a part of capitalism. It is though not a consequence of self-rightiousness, but the direct consequence of class relations.

I stopped listening after that, because this person is not presenting arguments, but opinions and ideologies.

[Bilan]

The irony.
Cappies calling 'socialists' - of which, they continually prove they don't know what is - barbarians.

Go home.

[Dejavu]

Mises and the circle jerk Austrians no doubt think he was one of socialism's greatest opponents, but he's pretty much ignored as a scholar by leftists and neo-classical economists alike.Well now, it seems strikingly clear you lack knowledge of the some of the economic and intellectual debates over socialism in the 20s and 30s.
Using neoclassicals and socialist economists really doesn't display credibility since the neoclassicals always seem to get it wrong but hey, at least their more correct than their socialist counterparts.

Turns out, of course, Mises was right. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marx-Mises-Communism-Economic-Calculation/dp/0812690168)

Looks like you're just scribbling a reply just to be seen.


My friend who took an Honors Macroeconomics class last quarter never heard of him, and it's no wonder: Austrian theory is ignored by 95% + of the profession. Probably 95% of capitalist economists, for that matter. Maybe more. First of all, its always 'my friend.' How many times have I heard that?
Its amazing some of the so called 'most brilliant minds' still cling to mainstream macro as if its even relevant to important issues such as quantity theory. The MS macro always looks to the aggregate price level, which is a mistake, and ignores the actual demand for different goods and services which generate their own prices and thus the markets , like they always have been , are diverse in nature and are very difficult to compute as aggregate. The MS macros look at the changes on the aggregate price level which takes the focus of misdirection of resources caused by inflation AND ALSO causing unemployment during a recession. This is even acknowledged by some skeptics within the neoclassical community.

The Keynesians still beat their head on a wall over this and the neoclassicals have about 20 different models using the same statistical data but come up with 20 different results. Yes, it was the "screw ball" Austrians (first Mises, then Hayek) that came up with the most accurate business cycle theory.

Whats really funny is asking a Keynesian ( any kind , New, Old) why their theories always result in stagflation when tried? :laugh:


And since the economics are based on these nonsense notions ('rational action', 'praxeology', this individualist ethic, etc.) the economics fall with the philosophy.

The same goes for Ayn Rand too.Sometimes its better not to write something at all instead asserting an opinion about something you know nothing about. It seems like scribbling to get attention but looks rather foolish. Do you even know what is meant by praxeology? Do you know what methodological individualism is?
Its amazing how much economics makes sense when you start with the individual instead of some aggregate. This is something the classical economists couldn't grasp but their offshoots the neoclassicals adopted theory based on methodological individualism and praxeology which gave birth to marginalization and gave meaning to the demand side of supply and demand. Carl Menger, the first Austrian, developed the basis for marginalization which is accepted in MS economics today and distinguishes neoclassical from classical. This is how most of MS economics has come to accept subjective value theory as well. (degrees vary.)



This idea that Mises (and Rothbard and Rand too, for that matter) was some kind of overpowering genius is just bullshit. Economics has had some brilliant minds in the 20th century -- Mises wasn't one of them.But Hayek still got the nobel prize who was a student of Mises and worked of Mises' ABCT. I take it you're not in higher education because if you were you would know about Rand if you even come anywhere close to philosophy. Back in the 20s and 30s , the Austrian theories were mainstream, especially in Europe, but they were not government friendly. Austrian principles would limit the government's role in the economy and not allow it to spend as much as it wants and magically 'make stone into bread' like Keynes babbled. Keynesianism was more accepted because it gave the state a broad range of powers even the power to create money out of thin air. In fact, it promoted that which is counter logic to economics and thus we had a prolonged depression, stagflation , mass inflation, more unemployment, and poverty levels have consistently gone up with the more Keynesianism we adopted. But Austrianism isn't government friendly and thats why its shunned by state universities ( but not all).


On Marx and relative wealth. See, here's a perfect example of these dipshits being totally ignorant of the relevant empirical information. Crime is tried to relative, not absolute, poverty. The criminals of today are, by and large, poor. But they're poor only in the sense that they are poor relative to others in their society. To others in, say, Latvia or Zimbabwe they might be quite well off. But guess what? They make more, but it also costs more to live. The social pressures in countries that are absolutely poorer do not exist. I assure you, the criminal down on the block who's "getting his" is no socialist -- he's (it's predominantly a male activity, crime) as pure a capitalist as you'll find.

So really, Marx was right. If your wages go up 5% a year and everyone elses go up 40%, you will become poorer in every meaningful sense. Prices of goods will go up (inflation), everyone else will amass wealth that you can't aspire to, your social standing will suffer, etc.

Alright, I made it through 17 minutes before I gave up. I tried.Actually, you're right about a lot of the stuff here but lets examine it a little closer. Its not that they're ignorant of the statistical information linking crime relative to poverty but actually most of these guys investigate deeper by figuring out what really leads to poverty. This is called thinking outside of the box and acknowledging the unseen ( so-called antics backstage) instead of whats directly in front of your eyes. All you can see outright is there is a correlation with poverty and crime. There is also a correlation with drugs and crime and there is even a correlation with heavy drugs and poverty or areas in poverty. Hence, there is a recognizable but not exclusive link with drugs-crime-poverty.

Once you examine how those things are related and what the government has done to address those things and whether its helped or made things worse then you can begin to talk seriously on the matter.

It is true that if your wages go up 5% but the cost of living goes up more than you're really loosing purchasing power and being robbed for your work. I couldn't agree more. Real wages always go down. And it is certainly related to inflation so I ask why are we in disagreement? If you really recognize inflation as one of the root causes of increased poverty and one of the main causes of destruction of the middle class then how on earth can you support increased statism and praise Keynesianism? Makes no sense to me.

You seem to get angry pretty easily too. PD?

[Dejavu]

Interesting remark. Do you not care if someone spends their money on a child prostitute?

OK, but the solution isn't taking the money and redistributing it. It still doesn't really address the problem that the twit is a pedophile.



I'm amused by the fact certain capitalist apologists get upset by food stamps, social security, labor regulation, workman's compensation, WIC, and other safety net provisions which more often than not provide assistance to good, hard-working people, but then excuse the lifestyle of Paris Hilton types because it's their family's money. Perhaps a reasonable argument could be made in favor of capitalism if all children up until the age of 25 enjoyed the same level of economic stability, and merit was actually the primary consideration for wealth.


I agree with a lot of this statement. I won't argue with something thats mostly correct. But be careful, it'd be nice if an opportunity was within one's grasp if they desired it but try to figure out achieving this without the forcible redistribution of wealth ( in other words, theft) since that in itself creates its own host of problems as we well know.



Ludwig Von Mises is taken less seriously by contemporary economists than even Karl Marx - not to mention his philosophical musings are rarely, if ever, taken to mean something. Who do you look up to? The nutter Alex Jones? The racist Ron Paul? The imperialist Milton Friedman? The crackpot Rothbard - the same guy who made a lengthy article detailing how Adam Smith should not be championed as a forbearer to classical liberalism due to his communist influence?

Mises finally proved the planners of the socialist system wrong. However, the planners of social democracy still put up a fight but are still on the same flawed intellectual ground.
Adam Smith wasn't exactly a classical liberal. He was actually fairly conservative. He was a traditional Calvanist. No where on the level of liberalism as Bastiat, Acton, Tocqueville, earlier Spanish scholastics, etc

[Bud Struggle]

I'll admit that i know nothing of economics and have never studied it. But I do know about social classes. and the reason I turned to leftism isnt because I was jealous of what the upper social classes had that I didnt have. In fact if you have really studied them you would see they have not very much at all to be jealous of.

For example, 'popular' people get a lot of friends because of what they own or what they have. They are liked because of very superficial qualities. Maybe the best looking, or the best athletes on the team, or something. This is not something to be jealous of.

Often social pariahs have many deep qualities that are not closely tied with what other people think. They often have deeper qualities. They often march to the beat of a different drummer, as one poet put it.

But pariahs often are denied their human rights. They are attacked, ridiculed, and sometimes they are murdered or they commit suicide.

What drove me to leftism is the fact that what happens is a violation of their person and their being denied their human democratic rights they should have. I was denied my rights as a human and I would like to help others to make sure no oneelse has to go through what I went through.

I think this is typical of most leftists. They have experienced denial of their rights, either their own or someone else's rights. They want to help. This is not envy, it is altruism.

The above is the best post I've ever read on RevLeft. It actually makes sense of Communism to me, a long time practicing Capitalist. It is a beautiful, kind and altruistic statement of purpose, rooted in life and rooted in love for humanity.

You can talk about your economics and your politics all you want, if what Svetlana describes is the real value of Communism--then Communism may just have a future.

Well done, Svetlana.

[Publius]

Well now, it seems strikingly clear you lack knowledge of the some of the economic and intellectual debates over socialism in the 20s and 30s.

Not really.



Using neoclassicals and socialist economists really doesn't display credibility since the neoclassicals always seem to get it wrong but hey, at least their more correct than their socialist counterparts.

Turns out, of course, Mises was right. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marx-Mises-Communism-Economic-Calculation/dp/0812690168)

Looks like you're just scribbling a reply just to be seen.

Hahaha.

The guy who's response to an objection about Austrian theory is just a reference to some other Austrian theorist is accusing someone ELSE of just scribbling? Ah!

By the way, you owe me 17 minutes of my life back. I try, in good faith, to watch this, assuming it would be some serious bit of scholarship, but I should have turned it off the instant I saw it was that Misean circle jerk.



First of all, its always 'my friend.' How many times have I heard that?

Well, I could have said 'my dormate' if that would have made you happier.



Whats really funny is asking a Keynesian ( any kind , New, Old) why their theories always result in stagflation when tried? :laugh:

Except they don't.

There are numerous countries that employ Keynesian economics that aren't in a state of constant stagflation. The entire idea of focusing on macroeconomic tools like manipulating the money supply is Keynesian. Guess what? The does that. Great Britain does that. The Euro zone does that. Who DOESN'T do that?

It's a Keynesian idea, and, lo and behold, the entire world economy is not failing. Furthermore countries like Sweden and Norway are quite successful.



Sometimes its better not to write something at all instead asserting an opinion about something you know nothing about. It seems like scribbling to get attention but looks rather foolish. Do you even know what is meant by praxeology?

Yes. It's Mises' bullshit casuistry of a philosophy used to explain away his economics. Based on nonsense notions like "human action" and omni-rational economic action.

If you'd like to lay out your understanding of it, I'd be glad to demolish it for you.



Do you know what methodological individualism is?
Its amazing how much economics makes sense when you start with the individual instead of some aggregate.

No, it's an idiotic denial of macroeconomics, something all of Austrian theory is rife with.



This is something the classical economists couldn't grasp but their offshoots the neoclassicals adopted theory based on methodological individualism and praxeology which gave birth to marginalization and gave meaning to the demand side of supply and demand.

Before praxeology there was no meaning to 'demand'?

All you do is talk obfuscatory bullshit that, when read carefully, dissolves. It's as if you're saying nothing at all.



Carl Menger, the first Austrian, developed the basis for marginalization which is accepted in MS economics today and distinguishes neoclassical from classical. This is how most of MS economics has come to accept subjective value theory as well. (degrees vary.)

[quote]
But Hayek still got the nobel prize who was a student of Mises and worked of Mises' ABCT.

You have a thing for writing ungrammatical sentences.


I take it you're not in higher education because if you were you would know about Rand if you even come anywhere close to philosophy.

No, I'm in college and have taken quite a few philosophy courses and am thinking about switching my major to philosophy. And it's one of my interests and hobbies.

Trust me, Rand is an insignificant figure in philosophy. She wasn't even a serious philosopher in her own right. For example:

Explain to me Rand's opinion on the basis of conceptual thought. Did she think it was linguistic or non-linguistic? What was Rand's opinion on free will? What arguments did she use to back up her opinion? What were Rand's criticisms of Kant? What were her advances in political philosophy?

There was a YouTube video I had demonstrating the complete lack of Rand references in standard philosophy texts, but sadly it was taken down.

Trust me, Ayn Rand is an insignificant figure in modern philosophy. Look up "Ayn Rand" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy if you don't believe me.

Here are, in total, the references to her:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-approaches/ (She isn't mentioned in the article; there is a reference to a book written about her, not by her)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humanism-civic/ (She is dismissively referenced, critically, once.)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/ (Same reference as the first article.)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-femhist/bib.html#AynRan (Just a list of articles and books about Rand; not a part of an article.)

I've taken classes from scholars much more notable than that.



Back in the 20s and 30s , the Austrian theories were mainstream, especially in Europe, but they were not government friendly.

No shit.


Austrian principles would limit the government's role in the economy and not allow it to spend as much as it wants and magically 'make stone into bread' like Keynes babbled. Keynesianism was more accepted because it gave the state a broad range of powers even the power to create money out of thin air. In fact, it promoted that which is counter logic to economics and thus we had a prolonged depression, stagflation , mass inflation, more unemployment, and poverty levels have consistently gone up with the more Keynesianism we adopted. But Austrianism isn't government friendly and thats why its shunned by state universities ( but not all).

Your history is entirely wrong.

Keynesianism got us out of the Great Depression, and was the economic policy that oversaw the greatest period of prosperity in US history, the 1950s. Also, it was broadly employed in post-war Europe, to great success, and is still broadly employed to this day in terms of monetary policy.



Actually, you're right about a lot of the stuff here but lets examine it a little closer. Its not that they're ignorant of the statistical information linking crime relative to poverty but actually most of these guys investigate deeper by figuring out what really leads to poverty.

No, I think it's that they're ignorant.


This is called thinking outside of the box and acknowledging the unseen ( so-called antics backstage) instead of whats directly in front of your eyes. All you can see outright is there is a correlation with poverty and crime.

I know the causes already. I've explained them to you. It has to with social pressures, it has to do with being in a hopeless situation (try finding a job in the ghetto), it has to do with a culture that glorifies fast cash and consumerism, it has to do with rising living costs, it has to do with the fact that most of these criminals don't graduate from high school, etc.

I could go on.



There is also a correlation with drugs and crime and there is even a correlation with heavy drugs and poverty or areas in poverty. Hence, there is a recognizable but not exclusive link with drugs-crime-poverty.

Yes, and you support the legalization of drugs, therefore, if it were the case that drugs caused crime, you'd be supporting an increase in crime.

Do you?

Maybe crime and drug use have an underlying cause... like poverty... and maybe if poverty were reduced, crime and drug use would recede...

It's brilliant!



Once you examine how those things are related and what the government has done to address those things and whether its helped or made things worse then you can begin to talk seriously on the matter.

The government has worked to reduce poverty and to reduce crime and to reduce drug use.

It hasn't done anywhere near enough in any of those areas, but that's a point in my favor, not yours.



It is true that if your wages go up 5% but the cost of living goes up more than you're really loosing purchasing power and being robbed for your work. I couldn't agree more. Real wages always go down.

So we're poorer now, in real terms, then people were 500 years ago?

Really?


And it is certainly related to inflation so I ask why are we in disagreement? If you really recognize inflation as one of the root causes of increased poverty and one of the main causes of destruction of the middle class then how on earth can you support increased statism and praise Keynesianism? Makes no sense to me.

Because you and I probably disagree on what "inflation" is.

Inflation is a rise in the general price level.

What's your definition?



You seem to get angry pretty easily too. PD?

I seem to write as if I'm angry. Big difference. It's a polemical style I use because I'm a better writer than you are. You know, I form grammatical sentences, follow the rules of English syntax, etc.

[Bud Struggle]

Interesting remark. Do you not care if someone spends their money on a child prostitute?

I'm amused by the fact certain capitalist apologists get upset by food stamps, social security, labor regulation, workman's compensation, WIC, and other safety net provisions which more often than not provide assistance to good, hard-working people, but then excuse the lifestyle of Paris Hilton types because it's their family's money. Perhaps a reasonable argument could be made in favor of capitalism if all children up until the age of 25 enjoyed the same level of economic stability, and merit was actually the primary consideration for wealth.



No, you are of course bending my obvious intention. People should able to do what they want with their money withing the limits of the law.

As far as thing like food stamps, workman's comp, etc. go, they serve a valuable purpose, and I am certainly not against them. I think the government should provide a general safty net for people in distress. It's the added value of living in a society. It's reasonable and it's kind.

On the other hand, such things shouldn't be taken advantage of. There should be time limits, fair limits. There should also be penalties for those that abuse the commonweal. Society is here to benefit all people, BUT all people must take responsibility for their actions and decisions.

As far as Paris Hilton goes--I could care less what she does with her family money. It's hers, let her spend it like an ass if she likes. Now making all kids financially equal till they're 25 makes about as much sense as making them all have brown hair and brown eyes till they are 25. Some kids have blond hair and blue eyes.

They just do. And some have more money, who cares?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

No, you are of course bending my obvious intention. People should able to do what they want with their money withing the limits of the law.I'm taking your statement to its natural conclusion.


As far as thing like food stamps, workman's comp, etc. go, they serve a valuable purpose, and I am certainly not against them. I think the government should provide a general safty net for people in distress. It's the added value of living in a society. It's reasonable and it's kind.I agree.


On the other hand, such things shouldn't be taken advantage of. There should be time limits, fair limits. There should also be penalties for those that abuse the commonweal. Society is here to benefit all people, BUT all people must take responsibility for their actions and decisions.
I agree.


Now making all kids financially equal till they're 25 makes about as much sense as making them all have brown hair and brown eyes till they are 25. Some kids have blond hair and blue eyes.Now that's absurd. Giving kids a fair chance in the labor market is not the same as eye coloration. I quoted a statistic earlier that children born to low and middle-income families are 21% less likely to reach a position in the top 5% as kids born to parents who already have that privilege, and when you factor the discrepancy doubles.

[Bud Struggle]

I agree.
I agree.

Now that's absurd. Giving kids a fair chance in the labor market is not the same as eye coloration. I quoted a statistic earlier that children born to low and middle-income families are 21% less likely to reach a position in the top 5% as kids born to parents who already have that privilege, and when you factor the discrepancy doubles.

Well we agree some, that's a start! :D

I meant the hair color and eye color as a metaphor for some kids having natural advantages that other kids don't. I'm not looking to make life a flat playing field from the beginning. Some kids are smarter, some girls are just better looking than others. some kids have more money.

I'm looking to give a chance to succeed to everyone. Some people will have more obsticles than others, I don't mind that. Just so everyone has a chance. I personally came from the humble working class family. Fine. My kids have all the advantages. Fine.

As long as a kid has a chance, I don't care about the odds that much. Bad odds really make one better in the long run.

[careyprice31]

The above is the best post I've ever read on RevLeft. It actually makes sense of Communism to me, a long time practicing Capitalist. It is a beautiful, kind and altruistic statement of purpose, rooted in life and rooted in love for humanity.

You can talk about your economics and your politics all you want, if what Svetlana describes is the real value of Communism--then Communism may just have a future.

Well done, Svetlana.


:blushing:

awww, some sweet.

Thanks a lot.:D

My opinion after getting to know Dejavu is that he is quite intelligent. I would say though that most people, even capitalists, do not believe in what he does. Dejavu is a different person he is.

[Bud Struggle]

:blushing:

My opinion after getting to know Dejavu is that he is quite intelligent. I would say though that most people, even capitalists, do not believe in what he does. Dejavu is a different person he is.

Dejavu's got a girlfriend!
Dejavu's got a girlfriend!

:tt1: :laugh:

[careyprice31]

Dejavu's got a girlfriend!
Dejavu's got a girlfriend!

:tt1: :laugh:

Rofl. :laugh:

[Dejavu]

Before praxeology there was no meaning to 'demand'? You demonstrate your lack of knowledge about economics. You might have a thing for philosophy but you're way of the mark with econ. The classical economists paid little attention to consumer demand and subjective evaluation which is why they couldn't solve the value paradox and chose to ignore it instead. They mainly focused on the supply side. Praxeology takes the issue from the standpoint of the individual actor in the market and demonstrates why consumer evaluation matters giving rise to marginalization which was even adopted by neoclassicals but they still falsely base their models on aggregate price change and demand rather than acknowledge the market is heterogeneous and cannot be formulated into a single aggregate.


Explain to me Rand's opinion on the basis of conceptual thought. Did she think it was linguistic or non-linguistic? What was Rand's opinion on free will? What arguments did she use to back up her opinion? What were Rand's criticisms of Kant? What were her advances in political philosophy?Rand is a questionable figure among modern philosophers and even shunned probably because Rand didn't hold any punches against modern philosophy in her own time.
As far as I know Rand's opinion on conceptual thought was a man's consciousness regarding entities as units is the basis of cognition.
It was conventional and not linguistic and she didn't pull any punches about Kant.I believe Rand asserted that free-will is part of human nature and the ability to reason is dependent upon free-will.
I think most would agree that Rand's greatest contribution to philosophy wasn't the philosophy itself but her novels which allowed many to have a philosophical reflection of their own lives.
I'm not a Randriod and don't care for some of Rand's criticism or her inflated ego about ethics.


Based on nonsense notions like "human action" and omni-rational economic action.Well if human action is indeed nonsense then why do you keep on proving its a logical concept. Your very action of trying to prove human action wrong constitutes a purposeful action. I don't see how you can coherently deny this.


Your history is entirely wrong.

Keynesianism got us out of the Great Depression, and was the economic policy that oversaw the greatest period of prosperity in US history, the 1950s. Also, it was broadly employed in post-war Europe, to great success, and is still broadly employed to this day in terms of monetary policy.Ok, you should just stick to philosophy because you're not doing too hot in the economics dept. The 50s were the greatest period of prosperity in the U.S.? In terms of what exactly? Growth? Income?
Hardly a product of Keynesianism the 50s were actually a pretty stable period but of course this was the decade before the 'Great Society' and the return to the New Deal politics of social engineering which made things worse ( poverty, unemployment, etc).
Keynesianism pulled us out of the Great Depression? huh?
How exactly did Keynesianism contribute to getting us out of the GD instead of prolonging it?
So we have a great monetary policy? Paper fiat? huh? And the continued debasement of the dollar contributing to increased economic hardships is a positive thing?


I know the causes already. I've explained them to you. It has to with social pressures, it has to do with being in a hopeless situation (try finding a job in the ghetto), it has to do with a culture that glorifies fast cash and consumerism, it has to do with rising living costs, it has to do with the fact that most of these criminals don't graduate from high school, etc.So its social pressures? Thats it? Thats your cause? The rest of things you listed are merely effects. Please elaborate on 'social pressures.'


Yes, and you support the legalization of drugs, therefore, if it were the case that drugs caused crime, you'd be supporting an increase in crime.

Do you?Here you demonstrate your lack of economic knowledge. The 'War on Drugs' merely creates the situation for drug cartels to exist and drug lords to profit. When you restrain the supply of drugs you increase their value driving their prices way up. Because drugs are more expensive crime is curiously more present. Really, for being a philosopher, I thought you'd understand cause and effect better than this.


Maybe crime and drug use have an underlying cause... like poverty... and maybe if poverty were reduced, crime and drug use would recede...Yeah but whats the cause of poverty again?


The government has worked to reduce poverty and to reduce crime and to reduce drug use.But the opposite effect was achieved. War on Poverty and War on Drugs contributed to creating more of the problem. Kinda like the 'War on Terror' breeds more terrorism.


It hasn't done anywhere near enough in any of those areas, but that's a point in my favor, not yours.Really? :laugh:


So we're poorer now, in real terms, then people were 500 years ago?How is that relevant? How does that solve the problem of poverty today?


I seem to write as if I'm angry. Big difference. It's a polemical style I use because I'm a better writer than you are. You know, I form grammatical sentences, follow the rules of English syntax, etc.So it is a personality disorder?

[careyprice31]

"Elsewhere, Mises declared that, if compressed into one word, liberalism meant property — privately held and earnestly protected by law (Liberalism (http://www.mises.org/store/Liberalism-P280C17.aspx), p. 19).
In terms of concretes, by capitalism I mean an economy with no progressive taxes, no central bank, no pure paper currency, no drug prohibition, no gun prohibition, no "affirmative action" employment mandates for any ethnic group, no government-run health care, no federal departments of education, energy, labor, homeland security, health and human services, no DEA, BATFE, SEC, EPA, FTC, FDA, no minimum legal wage rates, no price controls, no tariffs, no welfare — domestic or foreign, rural or urban, for the rich or the poor. You know, a free economy!"




I must say that when i read this my first reaction was,

wtf?

Because hardly anybody believes in this sort of system anymore. even capitalists. I think it would also never work if it were able to be implemented. Im no economist, but even I can see that it would never work. Im positive people now would see the flaws of that system.

but this is how dejavu is different. He believes in something hardly anyone else does, not even me.

To my mind capitalists and capitalism is ok with inequalities, because thats the way things are, some people work harder, some people have qualities no one else has so they should get more and so on. If it results in violations of rights and so on, they would generally try to fix it through reform, without thinking that.....maybe it results from flaws within the system itself.

Tbh i find dejavu's ideas fascinating, because they are different. He believes in something hardly anyone else does. And Ive always been fascinated by people who are different (even if i dont agree with them)

[Publius]

You demonstrate your lack of knowledge about economics. You might have a thing for philosophy but you're way of the mark with econ. The classical economists paid little attention to consumer demand and subjective evaluation which is why they couldn't solve the value paradox and chose to ignore it instead. They mainly focused on the supply side.

You said praxeology gave meaning to demand.

I assure you that before the Austrians had the idea of "demand" and could employ it in their reasoning.

Don't make me dig out my copy of Wealth of Nations to prove this point.


Praxeology takes the issue from the standpoint of the individual actor in the market and demonstrates why consumer evaluation matters giving rise to marginalization which was even adopted by neoclassicals but they still falsely base their models on aggregate price change and demand rather than acknowledge the market is heterogeneous and cannot be formulated into a single aggregate.

But markets CAN be formulated into a single aggregate. It's done all the time.

Modern economics is often referred to as applied mathematics.



Rand is a questionable figure among modern philosophers and even shunned probably because Rand didn't hold any punches against modern philosophy in her own time.

No, Rand is IGNORED because she's an insignificant thinker. Just because she had a high opinion of herself, and just because her Randroid followers think that she's brilliant doesn't mean she made a single lasting contribution to philosophy.

Because she didn't.



As far as I know Rand's opinion on conceptual thought was a man's consciousness regarding entities as units is the basis of cognition.

That doesn't mean anything.

What is "man's consciousness regarding entities as units"? That each entity in the world was a unit in the mind? What's an entity? A book? Why not a page in that book? Why not each atom in that book? Or are all of these entities in the mind?



It was conventional and not linguistic

It was Objectivist (imagine that) and non-linguistic (and thus wrong.)

So really you're saying she made no contribution beyond what Aristotle thought up 2,000 years ago in terms of concepts. I wonder if that will become a trend...



and she didn't pull any punches about Kant.

She hated Kant, yes.

But I don't know of any ARGUMENT she made against him. What was wrong the Categorical Imperative? Where did Kant trip up?


I believe Rand asserted that free-will is part of human nature and the ability to reason is dependent upon free-will.

Reason is just the application of deductive logic. Computers can "reason" in the "If p then q, p, ergo q" sense. Do computers have free will?

Nope.

So obviously, then, the ability to reason (deductively, that is) is not dependent on free-will.



I think most would agree that Rand's greatest contribution to philosophy wasn't the philosophy itself but her novels which allowed many to have a philosophical reflection of their own lives.

So? Dostoevsky did that, only Dostoevsky could actually write. Funny though, Dostoevsky isn't really regarded as an academic philosopher either (though he is probably taken more seriously as a thinker than Rand is.)



I'm not a Randriod and don't care for some of Rand's criticism or her inflated ego about ethics.

I think she was WRONG on ethics, but the fact that she focused ON ethics didn't make her wrong. Ethics are important.



Well if human action is indeed nonsense then why do you keep on proving its a logical concept. Your very action of trying to prove human action wrong constitutes a purposeful action. I don't see how you can coherently deny this.

I'm not denying that my action now is a purposeful action, I'm denying that all human action is purposeful action.

There's a difference between "Some actions are not purposeful" and "All actions are not purposeful."

I'm not saying the latter.



Ok, you should just stick to philosophy because you're not doing too hot in the economics dept. The 50s were the greatest period of prosperity in the U.S.? In terms of what exactly? Growth? Income?

The US was the richest country in the world, per capita, in the 1950s.

That isn't the case any more and it wasn't the case before then, except maybe during the 20s, but we all know how THAT turned out.



Hardly a product of Keynesianism

Eh?

Try again.


the 50s were actually a pretty stable period but of course this was the decade before the 'Great Society' and the return to the New Deal politics of social engineering which made things worse ( poverty, unemployment, etc).

Poverty rate today is still significantly lower today than it was at the beginning of the 60s, before the Great Society. Look up the facts, not the bullshit spin.



Keynesianism pulled us out of the Great Depression? huh?
How exactly did Keynesianism contribute to getting us out of the GD instead of prolonging it?

By injecting money into the economy, by putting people to work on public works projects, by staving off social unrest, by giving the unemployed something constructive to do, etc.



So we have a great monetary policy? Paper fiat? huh? And the continued debasement of the dollar contributing to increased economic hardships is a positive thing?

The Euro is also fiat, and it's doing well. As is the pound. How's the Swiss Franc doing? Isn't it fiat also?



So its social pressures? Thats it? Thats your cause? The rest of things you listed are merely effects. Please elaborate on 'social pressures.'

All of the things I listed were causes.

Social pressures include: feelings of inadequacy related to impoverishment, feelings that the only way to get out of the mess of poverty is through crime, peer pressure to "fit in" and to not try in school, so on and so forth.

Read something on the issue.



Here you demonstrate your lack of economic knowledge. The 'War on Drugs' merely creates the situation for drug cartels to exist and drug lords to profit.

I don't support the war on drugs. I think they should be legalized. But I also think that legalization would result in increased drug use.


When you restrain the supply of drugs you increase their value driving their prices way up.

Wait a minute... I thought DEMAND was important according to your praxeology nonsense, and that focusing only on supply was the error that all economists prior to the Austrians made?


Because drugs are more expensive crime is curiously more present.

Jaguars are more expensive than Hondas. Macs are more expensive than E-Machines. None of these differences relate to crime.



Really, for being a philosopher, I thought you'd understand cause and effect better than this.

Any serious philosopher would deny that there is such a thing as "cause and effect." Hume already destroyed the notion that there is such a thing as a "law of causality."

Your man went over that in the video. Have you even watched it?



Yeah but whats the cause of poverty again?

Those things I listed and quite a few more things.



But the opposite effect was achieved. War on Poverty and War on Drugs contributed to creating more of the problem. Kinda like the 'War on Terror' breeds more terrorism.

So you're telling me more people do drugs when they're illegal than would do them if they were legal?

:lol:

And how did the War on Poverty create more poverty if the poverty rate is lower now than it was when the program was started? Hmm? Here you go again, spouting off while ignorant of the facts.

Look up for me the poverty rate before LBJ and the current poverty rate. Compare them. Cease talking.



How is that relevant? How does that solve the problem of poverty today?

It has nothing to do with that.

You said that "real wages are always decreasing." I pointed that this was absurd. You misunderstood my reductio ad absurdum and posted something totally unrelated.



So it is a personality disorder?

So it is a non sequitur?

[careyprice31]

"I think most would agree that Rand's greatest contribution to philosophy wasn't the philosophy itself but her novels which allowed many to have a philosophical reflection of their own lives. So? Dostoevsky did that, only Dostoevsky could actually write."

Dostoyevsky's contribution wasnt just his novels. I am a major in Russian language and literature so I know this. Before Dostoyevsky, Nikolai Yanovsky-Gogol, wrote short satirical stories making fun of the upper class and showing the miseries of the lower class. Gogol was the first writer to depict the lower class miseries. Before him , there was Pushkin, but stories then mentioned romanticism and troubles of upper class people.

Dostoyevsky was the first to write big long novels about the miseries of the lower classes. He even took many of Gogol's short stories, and re wrote them, making them into long novels and cutting out the parts of gogol's stories that were unrealistic, making them realistic stories.

[Zurdito]

Dejavu, your wording is unfortunate: the barbarians arrived at the gates of Rome once the empire itself had become so decadent that it collapsed. The presence of "Barbarians at the gates" in itself represented a failure of the Roman Empire, as those peoples were part of the Empire: this in itself shows that it did not deserve to survive. If we were to apply that same logic here, then...

[Publius]

"I think most would agree that Rand's greatest contribution to philosophy wasn't the philosophy itself but her novels which allowed many to have a philosophical reflection of their own lives. So? Dostoevsky did that, only Dostoevsky could actually write."

Dostoyevsky's contribution wasnt just his novels. I am a major in Russian language and literature so I know this. Before Dostoyevsky, Nikolai Yanovsky-Gogol, wrote short satirical stories making fun of the upper class and showing the miseries of the lower class. Gogol was the first writer to depict the lower class miseries. Before him , there was Pushkin, but stories then mentioned romanticism and troubles of upper class people.

Dostoyevsky was the first to write big long novels about the miseries of the lower classes. He even took many of Gogol's short stories, and re wrote them, making them into long novels and cutting out the parts of gogol's stories that were unrealistic, making them realistic stories.

I was referring more to philosophy than literature, though.

Dostoevsky's works are regarded as some of the greatest works of existential fiction, and so have a natural place in some branches of philosophy.

But you're right about his literary influence.

[IcarusAngel]

"I think most would agree that Rand's greatest contribution to philosophy wasn't the philosophy itself but her novels which allowed many to have a philosophical reflection of their own lives. So? Dostoevsky did that, only Dostoevsky could actually write."

Dostoyevsky's contribution wasnt just his novels. I am a major in Russian language and literature so I know this. Before Dostoyevsky, Nikolai Yanovsky-Gogol, wrote short satirical stories making fun of the upper class and showing the miseries of the lower class. Gogol was the first writer to depict the lower class miseries. Before him , there was Pushkin, but stories then mentioned romanticism and troubles of upper class people.

Dostoyevsky was the first to write big long novels about the miseries of the lower classes. He even took many of Gogol's short stories, and re wrote them, making them into long novels and cutting out the parts of gogol's stories that were unrealistic, making them realistic stories.

Fascinating stuff. The revolutionary Russian writers, the true revolutionaries, are to be commended. Are Gogol's stories worth reading? What's the best example of Dostoevsky being sympathetic to the people of the struggling classes?

[careyprice31]

Fascinating stuff. The revolutionary Russian writers, the true revolutionaries, are to be commended. Are Gogol's stories worth reading? What's the best example of Dostoevsky being sympathetic to the people of the struggling classes?

The best one, I think, is Crime and Punishment.

Its my favorite one.

I dont know the names of all the novels he wrote, but CAP really stands out for me. He is quite sympathetic to the plight of the young very poor university student Raskolnikov is this one.

[Publius]

The best one, I think, is Crime and Punishment.

Its my favorite one.

I dont know the names of all the novels he wrote, but CAP really stands out for me. He is quite sympathetic to the plight of the young very poor university student Raskolnikov is this one.

Crime and Punishment is good in this sense. Notes From the Underground could work in this sense too. Probably want to avoid The Adolescent, The Idiot, and the Brothers Karamazov. They're all great books, but they focus much more on the upper class lifestyle, though the Idiot is a critique/criticism of upper-class life, so it could work.

Naturally though the best example of this spirit in Dostoevksy is going to be his first novel, Poor Folk, which he wrote when he was still a committed socialist. Full disclosure: I haven't read it because I haven't been able to find it in any bookstores around here, but I've read every one of Dostoevsky's other novels, so I'm sure this one's good too.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Dejavu, your wording is unfortunate: the barbarians arrived at the gates of Rome once the empire itself had become so decadent that it collapsed. The presence of "Barbarians at the gates" in itself represented a failure of the Roman Empire, as those peoples were part of the Empire: this in itself shows that it did not deserve to survive. If we were to apply that same logic here, then...

:lol:

Very astute.

[careyprice31]

"Notes From the Underground could work in this sense too"

Ye it could. I remember using this book as a source for a major essay once. Dostoyevsky critiqued the idea of scientific determinism, saying that if he got slapped by someone it would be absurd to charge him with a crime because "it wasnt his fault" society and his past made him do it !"

I lol'd at that actually. I believe in both the idea of free will and determinism. I believe in free will, we can make choices for ourselves but it is true, and proven, that we are also shaped by our society and our pasts.

[bcbm]

Fascinating stuff. The revolutionary Russian writers, the true revolutionaries, are to be commended. Are Gogol's stories worth reading? What's the best example of Dostoevsky being sympathetic to the people of the struggling classes?

Gogol wasn't a revolutionary, he sided with the ruling class.

[Bilan]

The best one, I think, is Crime and Punishment.

Its my favorite one.

I dont know the names of all the novels he wrote, but CAP really stands out for me. He is quite sympathetic to the plight of the young very poor university student Raskolnikov is this one.

I've never read any of Dostoevsky's works, but I've always been curious.

I just might check it out.
Any other recommendations?

[Luís Henrique]

I don't like this claim that somehow socialism is based on "envy".

I, on the contrary, love it.

Up to now, we have come up with four basic "facts":

1. Socialism is based on envy;
2. Capitalism is based on greed;
3. Greed is an essential part of human nature;
4. Envy, apparently, is not.

I think some people are getting their Political Theology wrong...

:lol:

Luís Henrique

[Bud Struggle]

4. Envy, apparently, is not.

I think some people are getting their Political Theology wrong...

:lol:

Luís Henrique

They don't have women in Brazil????:lol: